On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 3:02 AM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote:
> > If we use SHOULD NOT, as you suggest, there's an implication that there > might be a valid reason for > > non-transactional mail to use "p=reject". Are we okay with that? > > When do folks get to line up so they can plead the case for their reason? > > I, for one, am not. We often use "SHOULD NOT" incorrectly to mean > "MUST NOT, but we know it will be widely violated so we're saying > SHOULD NOT". We need to stop doing that. > A "standard" which is widely violated is not a standard. To publish a standard one knows is and will be widely violated is a bit of a fool's errand, n'est-ce pas? We need to stop doing that. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
